14th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-14

21st -25th October 2018, Melbourne, Australia

Operational Experience of HiPACT® Process

Junya Okazakia, *, Aiko Horikawaa, Koji Tanakaa,
Graham Orrb, Gatot Joyowardoyob, Torsten Katzb
a
Technology Innovation Center, JGC CORPORATION, Yokohama, Japan
b
OASE Gas Treating Excellence, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Abstract

This paper is an update on our presentations which were given during GHGT-10 [1] and GHGT-11[2].

We would like to share some of the challenges faced during the first commercial use of the HiPACT® technology. HiPACT® is a
technology jointly developed by JGC and BASF, which has now been successfully implemented by NIS, a Serbian multinational
oil and gas company.
HiPACT® is an advanced solvent based CO 2 capture technology that contributes to improving the economics of Carbon dioxide
Capture and Storage (CCS) in natural gas processing plants as well as Carbon dioxide Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS)
projects such as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). The solvent has excellent stability against thermal degradation, which enables
operation at high pressure and elevated temperatures during solvent regeneration to reduce CO 2 compression costs downstream.
In addition, it also has a higher CO 2 absorption capacity than other commercially available solvents which results in decreased
solvent circulation rates and lower Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) capital and operating costs.
As the first commercial implementation, a HiPACT® unit was installed at the Elemir site which is owned by NIS with the aim of
meeting the technical requirements of the national gas distribution network in Serbia. The natural gas was firstly introduced in
January 2015 and continued for a trial run period until July 2015. The gas processing plant was then successfully commissioned
and has been in commercial operation ever since this time.
This paper presents i) operational experience with the HiPACT® unit and ii) economic evaluation including the compressor
section to show the advantage of HiPACT® over state-of-the-art technology currently used worldwide.

Keywords: HiPACT; CCS; CO 2 capture; high pressure; natural gas; energy saving; cost reduction

1. Introduction

In order to meet the strong global energy demand with cleaner energy, natural gas is expected to play an
increasingly important role. Since the CO 2 emission coefficient per unit of heat of natural gas is approximately 29%
and 44% lower than that of oil and coal, respectively [3], the role of natural gas is recognized as being central as we
transition to a low-carbon society. The growth in natural gas consumption as a primary energy source is predicted to
outpace the other hydrocarbons over the next 20 years [4]. Before we can use raw natural gas however, there are

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-45-682-8371; fax: +81-45-682-8009

E-mail address: okazaki.junya@jgc.com

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

2 GHGT-14 Author name

often practical considerations which first must be made. Raw natural gas often contains acid gases such as CO 2 and
H 2 S which must be removed in order to meet the customer’s specification. Namely, CO 2 concentration should be
less than 2−4 mol% and 50 ppmv for pipeline transportation and for the LNG production process, respectively [3,5].
If the raw natural gas contains a significant proportion of CO 2 , then it may possible to use this volume of CO 2 for
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). However, if CO 2 -EOR is not a feasible option, then another way to reduce the
accumulation of CO 2 in the atmosphere may be the deployment of Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS).
Currently, an amine based solvent absorption process is most widely used for CO 2 removal from natural gas. The
CO 2 can be recovered at close to atmospheric pressure, which means a significant amount of compression energy is
then required for its re-use or sequestration. Against this backdrop, JGC Corporation (JGC) and BASF SE (BASF)
have jointly developed HiPACT®, an advanced CO 2 capture technology for economical CCS and Carbon dioxide
Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS), which is designed for implementation in natural gas processing plants.
Figure 1 shows the general concept of HiPACT®. Since the solvent has high stability against thermal degradation,
it can be operated at high pressure and elevated temperatures during solvent regeneration. This enables the recovery
of CO 2 at higher pressure than the conventional amine process, and reduces CO 2 compression costs for both CCS
and CCUS projects. In addition, the solvent has a higher CO 2 absorption capacity than commercially available
solvents, resulting in decreased solvent circulation rates and lower Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU) capital and
operating costs. Even though the solvent has a higher vapor pressure compared to MDEA, with appropriate design
measures and good operational practice, the annual solvent loss is similar or even lower than the commonly expected
and acceptable range of 10−15% of the liquid holdup volume.
Recently, we have introduced the first commercial scale HiPACT® unit into Elemir in Serbia as part of a gas
processing plant. From January 2015, the HiPACT® unit has been successfully operated with NIS, a Serbian
multinational oil and gas company. We describe herein i) the operational experience with the HiPACT® unit and ii)
economic evaluation including the compressor section to show the advantages of HiPACT® over state-of-the-art
technology currently used worldwide.

Concept of HiPACT
Concept of HiPACT
AGRU
Gas Well AGRU
Liquefaction LNG
HiPACT
(Natural Gas) Liquefaction Sales
LNGGas
Gas Well
HiPACT
(Natural Gas) Sales Gas
CO2 stripping pressure
CO2
Bar(a)
1.2 stripping 3pressure
-5
CO 2 K ey features of HiPACT solvent
Existing technology HiPACT CO2
1.2 3-5 Bar(a) High stability High performance
CO2 Compressor K ey features of ofHiPCOACT solvent
ExistingCompression
technology ratio
HiPACT against degradation 2 absorption

200/3 = 66 High stability High performance

200/1.2 = 166 CO2 Compressor
Compression200/5
ratio = 40 against degradation of CO2 absorption
- Realize high CO2 - Realize low solvent
200/3 = 66 stripping pressure rate
200/1.2 = 166
200/5 = 40
CO2 injection pressure - Realize high CO2 - Realize low solvent
200 Bar(a) stripping
- Reduce pressure
comp. ratio rate
CO2 injection pressure - Reduce CO2 volume
200 Bar(a) - Reduce comp. ratio
- Reduce
- Reducecomp.
CO2 energy
volume - Reduce AGRU energy
Aquifer - Reduce comp. size - Reduce AGRU size
- Reduce comp. energy - Reduce AGRU energy
Aquifer - Reduce
Reduce comp. size and OPEX
CAPEX - Reduce AGRU
for CCSsize

Reduce CAPEX and OPEX for CCS

Fig. 1. The HiPACT® Concept

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

 GHGT-14 Author name 3

2. First commercial HiPACT® unit at Elemir Gas Processing Plant

2.1. Overview of HiPACT® unit in NIS

NIS is one of the largest vertically integrated energy companies in southeastern Europe, owned by the
government of the Republic of Serbia (29.87%) and Russia’s Gazprom Neft (56.15%). Its principal activities are
exploration, production and refining, together with sales and distribution of a broad range of petroleum products, as
well as the implementation of energy projects. In Serbia, natural gas is an increasingly important source of energy
production. Since natural gas often contains significant amounts of CO 2 , NIS have sought for a proper gas
processing technology to meet the pipeline specification. According to European regulations, the maximum
permitted percentage of CO 2 in natural gas is 3 mol%. As the Republic of Serbia is moving closer to joining the EU,
all applicable regulations are being adapted to match EU regulations. To meet these requirements and maintain
supply to its customers, NIS had to take measures to reduce CO 2 in the gas from its domestic gas fields. This was
achieved by installation of an amine plant using HiPACT® technology at the Elemir site.
The HiPACT® unit is part of the gas processing plant which PITNIG (NIS) operates in Vojvodina, Serbia. The
PITNIG plant is located near Zrenjanin in Elemir and supplies pipeline gas to the public grid (Serbiagas). The plant
is designed to process 500,000−800,000 Sm3/day of natural gas, with 18−30 % of CO 2 .
The plant is shown in Figure 2.

Fig. 2. The amine plant in Elemir, part of the gas processing plant

Capturing the CO 2 from raw natural gas also means producing off-gas containing high amounts of CO 2 . In-line
with NIS's commitment to minimize its CO 2 emission footprint, this acid off-gas leaving the amine unit (containing
>99 mol% CO 2 ) is returned to the ground. This stream at 4.2 bara is dried in a glycol unit and then compressed to 63
bara, before being sent back to a reservoir, around 12 km from the plant site.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

4 GHGT-14 Author name

This commitment also comes with higher energy requirements. The two largest energy consumers at the plant are
amine solvent regeneration (accounting for about 20% of the total amount spent on the construction of the plant) and
the compressor. By using the latest innovations currently available on the market, including HiPACT® technology,
NIS is able to reduce this consumption to within feasible CAPEX and OPEX requirements.

2.2. Process description

The gas processing plant in Elemir consists of two sections, followed by a CO 2 compression section:

1. CO 2 capture unit – unit 100, designed to remove acidic gases from natural gas, and regenerate the solvent,
using HiPACT® technology
2. The drying unit – unit 200, designed to remove moisture from both treated natural gas and CO 2 off-gas,
using triethylene glycol (TEG)
3. CO 2 compression unit – unit 300, designed to pressurize CO 2 off-gas for reservoir storage, using a
reciprocating gas compressor package

The following is a block diagram of the plant:

Unit 200:
Unit 100: CO2 capture Drying

Outlet
of CO2

CO2 Compressor

Unit 300:
CO2 Compression

TEG inlet
TEG outlet

Fig. 3. Block diagram of the Elemir gas processing and CO 2 compression plant

The plant is designed to meet the following specifications:

Capacity
 Dry natural gas : approx. 576,800 Sm3/day
 Carbon dioxide : approx. 223,200 Sm3/day.

Treated natural gas specifications

 Water content : < 100 ppmw,
 CO 2 content : max. 3 mol%
 Temperature : max. 50 °C
 Pressure : min. 34 bara

Acid off-gas specifications

 Water content : < 100 ppmw
 Temperature : max. 50 °C

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

 GHGT-14 Author name 5

 Pressure : min. 4 bara

Compressed CO 2 specifications
 Pressure : min. 63 bara

2.2.1. Unit 100

Figure 4 shows the CO 2 capture unit (HiPACT® unit) which consists of an absorption section and a regeneration
(LP-flash + stripper) section.
The gas stream and liquid amine solution come into contact in an absorption tower – 100-CL01. The gas to be
scrubbed enters from the bottom of the absorber, flows up through the tower and leaves from the top, whereas the
solvent enters from the top of the absorber, flows down (coming into contact with the gas) and emerges from the
bottom. Demineralized water is fed to the top of the absorber to compensate for the water loss (unrecoverable water
that exits with the treated gas and acid off-gas stream).
The amine solution, which is rich in acid gas, is then routed to the regeneration unit, where it is heated, and the
acid gases are released. This solvent regeneration is carried out at low pressure: first in the 100-CL03 LP flash
column (regeneration by flashing) and afterwards in the 100-CL02 stripper (regeneration by steam stripping).

Fig.4. Process flow diagram of the amine unit 100

The rich amine solution leaves the bottom of the absorber at 82 °C and 36 bara. It is then heated in a rich/lean
amine heat exchanger and is then passed to the LP flash column. Most of the dissolved acid gas is released here
(leaving at 90 °C and approx. 4.5 bara) to the overhead condenser. The water condensate is returned as reflux to the
column and the acid off-gas (CO 2 -rich gas) leaves the amine section and goes to unit 200 – TEG dehydration.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

6 GHGT-14 Author name

The semi-lean amine solution is pumped from the bottom of the LP flash column through the semi-lean/lean heat
exchanger, where it is heated and routed to the stripper column, where the remaining CO 2 is removed from the
amine solution. The gas stream leaving the top of the stripper enters the LP flash column.
The required heat for the stripper column is provided by reboilers, using 11 bara saturated steam. The lean amine
leaving the bottom of the stripper column is cooled down by the heat exchangers. After cooling, the lean amine
passes to the suction pump and is sent to the air and water cooler, where the amine solution temperature at outlet is
decreased to 40 °C.
After cooling, 10% of the amine solution goes to the filters, and the remainder to the filter bypass, where it
reaches the amine storage vessel. The role of the filters is to remove contaminants from the amine solution in order
to avoid foaming. From the amine storage vessel, the lean amine is pumped into the absorber column to resume the
absorption process.
The following are the recorded operation variables of unit 100 of the amine plant in Elemir:

Table 1. Recorded operating variable of unit 100

Temperature, °C Pressure, barg
Absorber column Solvent inlet (top) 40 33-34
Gas inlet (bottom) 5-15 33-34
Rich solvent outlet (bottom) 79 33-34
Sweet gas outlet (top) 43 33-34
LP flash column Rich solvent inlet (after 100-HE02) 99 3.2
Solvent outlet (bottom) 95 3.22
Acid gas outlet (top) 88 3.2
Stripper column Solvent inlet (after 100-HE03) 114 3.23
Solvent outlet (bottom) 141 3.25
% of amine solution going to filter section 3-10

Average CO 2 content in solvent (bottom of 100-CL02), wt% 1.1

Average solvent strength (100-VE02), wt% 37
Average results of foaming test (foam height/time), ml/s 400/35

2.2.2. Unit 200

Moisture removal process is done using TEG (triethylene glycol) – a liquid with strong affinity for water. It
contains two absorbers for different gases: treated natural gas and CO 2 off-gas, which share the same regenerator.

Dehydration of Treated Natural Gas

The operating parameters of the natural gas dehydration process in the amine plant in Elemir are as follows:

Table 2. Operating parameters of the natural gas dehydration process

Temperature, °C Pressure, barg
Natural gas dehydration column NG inlet (bottom) 43 33-34
Glycol inlet (top) 34 33-34
NG outlet (top) 43 33-34
Glycol (bottom) 41 33-34

The dry natural gas (max. water content 100 ppmw) leaves the top of the dehydration column and is routed to the
battery limit, from where it flows into the gas pipeline network.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

 GHGT-14 Author name 7

Dehydration of CO 2 (Acid off-gas)

The following are the operating parameters of the CO 2 (acid off-gas) dehydration process in the amine plant in
Elemir:

Table 3. Operating parameters of the carbon-dioxide dehydration process

Temperature, °C Pressure, barg
carbon-dioxide dehydration CO 2 inlet (bottom) 34 3.15
column Glycol inlet (top) 34 3.1
CO 2 outlet (top) 40 3.1
Glycol outlet (bottom) 44 3.2

The dry CO 2 (max. water content 100 ppmw) leaves the top of the column, and is routed to the battery limit,
from where it is sucked into the CO 2 compressor.

2.2.3. Unit 300

The CO 2 compression unit consists of three stages of reciprocating gas compressor package, driven by gas engine.
The compressor pressurizes dehydrated CO 2 from 4.2 bara to normally 65 bara, maximum 91 bara.

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Site acceptance test for HiPACT® unit

A log has been issued to present the results of the "Site Acceptance Test”(SAT) performed in 2015. The
acceptance log has been signed by the participants from the client NIS and the contractor.
Natural gas was sent to the amine sweetening unit and TEG dehydration unit according to the production plan
prepared by NIS. The main product of the plant, sweet natural gas/sales gas, was continuously supplied to the public
company Serbiagas. The quality of the natural gas was very good. The average CO 2 concentration was 0.05 mol%
(below the design value of 3 mol%). The natural gas moisture content was, on average, 20 ppmw H2 O, below the
design value of 100 ppmw.
During the SAT, the following parameters were achieved:

Feed gas capacity

Table 4. Feed gas flow
Crit Parameter Units Design parameters SAT measured value Working
No. parameters
after SAT
Min. Max Day1 Day 2 Day 3
1 Feed flow Sm3/day 480,000 900,000 728,000 730,500 732,000 700,000 –
840,000

The above natural gas feed flow is based on the availability of gas field production on the given day and not the
capacity limitation of the gas processing plant. After the SAT period, the plant was exposed to a feed gas flow rate
up to 105% of design capacity for a short period.
Generally, the ramping up process from 0% to design capacity tends to be smooth, occasionally with minor
operational problems such as bouncing (foaming). However, it was noticed that glycol loss from Unit 200 also
increases at higher gas capacities.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

8 GHGT-14 Author name

Treated gas quality

Table 5. Characteristics of treated gas quality from gas treating unit
Crit Parameter Units Design SAT measured value Working
No. parameters parameters
after SAT
Day1 Day 2 Day 3
1 Flow - hydrocarbon stream Sm3/day 410,000- 550,000-
720,000 602,420 605,658 606,096 650,000
2 CO 2 mol% < 3.00 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.05-3.00
3 C1 (methane) mol% 86.70 90.35 90.08 90.55 88-92
4 C2+ (ethane and heavier) mol% 6.38 6.22 5.9 6.16 6.00-7.00
5 H2S mol% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 N2 mol% 3.91 3.38 3.28 3.27 3.45-4.50
7 Temperature °C 46.00 46 46 46 40-50
8 Pressure barg 33.00 29 30 31 32-34
9 Moisture content ppm by 85.00 15 20 25 30-50
weight
10 Maximum pressure drop in gas bar <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
flow rate through the whole unit

The above delivery pressure is measured at the battery limit (on the consumer side). The value depends on the
user:
 Local Serbian industrial customer in Vojvodina region (“lower” pressure customers)
 Serbian industrial customer outside Vojvodina region (“higher” pressure customers)

The pressure outlet from the absorber tends to be maintained at a constant level (~34 bara), by responding to the
pressure on the customer side (by operational adjustment of the delivery compressor). This is especially important
when the higher pressure customers start kicking in, as the back pressure may exceed the existing PSV setting (max.
37 bara). When higher delivery pressure is needed, the delivery compressor will start up and maintain its suction
pressure (P outlet absorber) at around the design value.
During the SAT period, CO 2 slip from the absorber outlet tended to be at a much lower level than the design
value. This unintended operating mode gives flexibility to the operation by Serbia Gas, the gas distribution company.
However, this is taxing on the performance of the washing water section in the HiPACT® unit. This is discussed in
the following section.

Acid off-gas quality

Table 6. Characteristics of acid off-gas from gas treating unit
Crit Parameter Units Design SAT measured value Working
No. parameters parameters
after SAT
Day1 Day 2 Day 3
1 Flow – stream rich in CO 2 Sm3/day 90,000- 125,580 124,842 125,904 120,000-
256,000 155,000
2 CO 2 mol% > 99.55 99.30 99.12 99.31 99.4-99.75
3 C1 (methane) mol% 0.37 0.61 0.78 0.68 0.2-0.5
4 C2+ (ethane and heavier) mol% 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.05-0.15
5 H2S mol% 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01
6 N2 mol% 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01
7 Temperature °C 40 38.4 38.9 39 37-40
8 Pressure barg 3 3.10 3.09 3.09 3.0-3.1
9 Moisture content ppmw 95 30 47 47 50-75

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

 GHGT-14 Author name 9

A purity of >99.55 mol% CO 2 was not reached during the SAT period, because the plant was handling a lower-
than-design CO 2 content in the feed gas. Since the HiPACT® solution flow rate could not be reduced accordingly,
and this resulted in a higher-than-design hydrocarbon co-absorption into the solution. The higher co-absorption led
to higher hydrocarbon content in the acid off-gas stream.
The temperature at the regeneration outlet was maintained at lower levels than the design value during this period.
This was intended to lower the water load on downstream Unit 200, as lower gas temperature equates to lower
moisture content.

3.2. Operating conditions for the HiPACT® unit after SAT

After the SAT, over the last two years, the amine sweetening unit and TEG dehydration unit worked in different
operating conditions, with several different flow rates (from 700,000 to 840,000 Sm3/day) and qualities of inlet gas
(16-26% CO 2 ). The main product of the plant, sweet natural gas/sales gas, was continuously supplied to the public
company Serbiagas, and the quality of the natural gas was very good in all operating regimes. The CO 2
concentration ranged from 0.05−3 mol%. The natural gas moisture content was, on average, 40 ppmw H 2 O, well
below the design value of 100 ppmw.
Generally, the ramp-up process from 0% to design capacity and changes in the process parameters depending on
changes in inlet flow rate and gas quality tends to be smooth; with minor operational problems such as bouncing
(foaming) or other interference. However, it was noticed that glycol loss from Unit 200 also increases at higher gas
capacities and rapidly increasing inlet flow rates.
Working parameters after SAT are shown in Table 4−6. For the acid off-gas quality, design purity of > 99.55
mol% CO 2 was reached after the SAT period in all operating regimes where the inlet gas flow rate was above 95%
of capacity and CO 2 content was above 20 mol%.

3.3. Operational experience with the HiPACT® unit

Generally, the HiPACT® unit (Unit 100) is very easy to operate. Fewer problems are experienced in comparison
to other units, e.g. the glycol unit (Unit 200) and waste water facility.
Due to extreme weather conditions, such as very cold winters in recent years, some lines that are not operated
constantly (e.g. drains, instrumentation) may get clogged. This has been improved subsequently, either by adding
insulation or heat tracing. During hot summers, the lean amine temperature can be very hot (above 50 °C). This has
led to current studies to increase performance of the lean amine cooler by increasing the surface area.
Foaming is not generally an issue. This can be attributed to the location of the amine unit downstream from the
LPG plant. Therefore, heavier hydrocarbons (contaminants in the amine solvent) have been removed from the feed
natural gas. Antifoaming agent consumption is around 5 l per month. This is usually injected during re-startup (after
power outages), when operators can observe the bouncing level(s) in the column(s). In order to further optimize
antifoam consumption, the flow rate to the solvent filtration unit has been reduced, which is intended to minimize
the antifoaming agent being filtered in this unit.
Fresh amine make-up was in line with expectations at around 350 kg per month. This is equal to approx. 6−7%
per year of the plant’s holdup volume. This is a lower solvent loss compared to most natural gas plant (10−15%
fresh amine make-up per year).
The following additional operational experiences are detailed in the published paper [6].
 High amine content in the water drain downstream of the stripping section
 Operation between high and low CO 2 slip outlet from the absorber
 Result of long-term solvent analysis
Regarding the compression unit, it was found that HiPACT® unit (Unit 100) and the glycol unit (Unit 200)
provide stabile operational working parameters at the inlet of the compression unit (minimum oscillations in flow
and pressure on compressor suction line), resulting in the compressors working fluidly with minimum (if any)
autoregulation.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

10 GHGT-14 Author name

4. Economic study of HiPACT® and compression unit

4.1. Study condition

As shown in Figure 1, HiPACT® reduces CAPEX and OPEX for CCS resulting from high temperature stability
and high CO 2 absorption performance of its solvent. An economic study of HiPACT over OASE® purple, which is a
widely used gas treating technology by BASF, was carried out based on design conditions of the commercial plant
in Elemir. The scope and condition of study are shown in Figure 5 and Table 7, respectively. The study method was
developed based on that of GHGT-10 [1]. CAPEX and OPEX were estimated using JGC’s in-house cost data.

Fig.5. Scope of study

Table 7. Economic study condition

Process unit OASE® purple HiPACT®
AGR (Acid gas Removal) CO 2 recovery rate (gross) 0.14 million tons per year
Regeneration pressure 1.7 bara 4.7 bara
Compression Compressor discharge pressure 91 bara

4.2. Result and discussion

The results of the economic study are shown in Table 8 and 9. Higher absorption performance of HiPACT®
results in a lower solvent circulation rate, and thereby greatly improves the Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU)
economics (i.e., 16% reduction in the owner’s annual expenditure). The higher regeneration pressure of HiPACT®
results in a reduction in the number of compressor stages and a lower power input. As a consequence, the CO 2
compression costs are significantly reduced (i.e., 7% reduction in the owner’s annual expenditure). Overall,
HiPACT® achieves a 14% cost reduction compared to OASE® purple. Furthermore, the reduced energy
consumption of HiPACT® results in reduced CO 2 emissions, and thereby in a net CO 2 recovery rate 6 % greater
than that with OASE® purple. Combining the overall economics and net CO 2 recovery rate, the net CO 2 recovery
cost with HiPACT® is 20 % lower than with OASE® purple.

Table 8. Process parameter

Process unit OASE® purple HiPACT®
AGR Train number 1 1
Solvent circulation rate 1.0 (Base) 0.6
Reboiler duty 1.0 (Base) 0.9
Compression Train number 1 1
Compressor BHP 1.0 (Base) 0.8

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

 GHGT-14 Author name 11

Table 9. Cost parameters

OASE® purple HiPACT®
AGR Comp Total AGR Comp Total
Annual fixed cost (relative value) *1 0.59 0.16 0.75 0.50 0.15 0.64
OPEX (relative value) *1 0.23 0.02 0.25 0.20 0.01 0.21
Owner’s annual expenditure (relative value) *1 0.83 0.17 1.00 0.70 0.16 0.86
(saving from OASE® purple [%]) (-16%) (-7%) (-14%)
CO 2 emission [mil.tons/year] 0.032 0.006 0.038 0.027 0.005 0.031
Net CO 2 recovery [mil.tons/year] - - 0.102 - - 0.109
(improvement from OASE® purple [%]) (+6.3%)
Net CO 2 recovery cost (relative value) *2 - - 1.00 - - 0.80
(saving from OASE® purple [%]) (-20%)
*1 Owner’s annual expenditure for OASE® purple = 1.00
*2 Net CO 2 recovery cost for OASE® purple = 1.00

According to the previous economic study [1], maximum 35% CCS cost reduction was expected depending on
the CO 2 recovery rate (i.e., 1.5 million tons/year of gross CO 2 recovery rate). Through the economic study in this
period, it was found that HiPACT® still has an economic advantage even if the case where the CO 2 recovery rate
and compressor discharge pressure are relatively lower.

5. Conclusion

Based on the experience with this plant, HiPACT® provides a feasible solution to reduce the CO 2 emission
footprint of an acid gas removal unit. In combination with CO 2 storage, this technology enables carbon capture and
storage to be achieved economically and environmentally. This shows that development in the oil and gas sector can
go hand-in-hand with a reduced environmental impact.
NIS has learned the following lessons about the HiPACT® technology provided by BASF and JGC:

 The HiPACT® unit is user-friendly, easy to operate, and forgiving

 Even though the solvent has a higher vapor pressure compared to MDEA, with appropriate design measures
and good operational practice, the annual solvent loss of 6-7% is lower than the commonly expected and
acceptable range of 10 – 15% of liquid holdup volume
 The solvent shows long term stability, when exposed to high regeneration pressure (4.2 bara) and
temperature (140°C)
 So far, no major issues have been experienced in the plant and NIS is positive about the future operation

From the economic study, it was found that HiPACT® contributes to a reduction in CCS cost by 20% even if the
CO 2 recovery rate and CO 2 discharge pressure are somewhat lower.
Currently, JGC and BASF is actively promoting the HiPACT® technology to customers who are developing CCS
and CCUS, including CO 2 -EOR projects.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Mr. Nikola Vukoje of NIS for his helpful support.

Reference

[1] Kumagai T, Tanaka K, Fujimura Y, Ono T, Ito F, Katz T, Spuhl O, Tan A. HiPACT–advanced CO 2 capture technology for green natural gas

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945

12 GHGT-14 Author name

exploration, Energy Proced 2011;4:125−132.

[2] Tanaka K, Fujimura Y, Komi T, Katz T, Spuhl O, Contreras E. Demonstration test result of High Pressure Acid gas Capture Technology
(HiPACT), Energy Proced 2013;37:461-476.
[3] Kidnay AJ. Parrish WA, McCartney DG. Fundamentals of natural gas processing 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011.
[4] BP Energy Outlook 2018 edition.
[5] Rufford TE, Smart S, Watson GCY, Graham BF, Boxall J, Diniz da Costa JC, May EF. The removal of CO 2 and N 2 from natural gas: A
review of conventional and emerging process technologies, J Petrol Sci Eng 2012;94-95: 123−154.
[6] Vukoje N, Joyowardoyo G. Operational Experience of High Pressure Acid-gas Capture Technology (HiPACTTM), Proc GPA Europe 2017
Annu Conf Sep 13−15, 2017, Budapest, Hungary.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365945